(05-06-2018 04:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: Here's what makes me think Colorado is a legitimate option in this scenario.
1. If Oklahoma joins the Big Ten then another familiar face will help smooth things out. For that matter, Nebraska could use another familiar face.
2. If the B1G can't break into ACC territory right now then Denver and the CO market really makes a great deal of sense. It is at least a growing state as opposed to most of the Midwest/Northeast markets within reach of the B1G.
3. From CU's perspective, if the PAC can't get a handle on things then they're going to be woefully underfunded. The PAC Network has not been successful so they could make quite a bit more in the B1G.
4. While CU does have a lot of alumni in CA, it's not as though they have large roving bands of fans following their team around PAC territory. If CU moved then they could make up for whatever ripples it caused by consistently scheduling West Coast schools in non-conference.
5. More than that, their exposure in the East and Midwest has been reduced to nil. I wouldn't be shocked if Colorado believed in 2010 that they were going to be the first in a line of Big 12 schools to break ranks and create a larger, more robust PAC. It obviously didn't happen that way, but there had to be discussions of this prospect and we all know Texas was trying to lead a squadron over there. I'm not saying that CU doesn't prefer the PAC, but I'm not convinced that their new conference home is doing everything for them that they expected it would.
-Now, I really don't think Notre Dame is an option to move in this scenario. Here are my reasons for that.
1. The ACC offers far superior demographics compared to the B1G. Long term, the Midwest and the Northeast to some degree may have issues. Southern and Mid-Atlantic markets, however, are still growing and providing ND with a fresh new crop of eyeballs. More or less, the B1G wants to take schools in the ACC for essentially the same reason. ND by contrast has had the freedom to move their affiliation rather than hoping schools from the growing regions attach themselves to a different league.
2. ESPN wants it all. I don't think ESPN would give up any access to ND games unless they had to. While the network would love to get greater access to B1G games, they may be able to do it anyway if the BTN loses more steam and/or the exposure on FOX continues to be limited. They've got about 5 more years and they'll be going back to the negotiating table anyway. By that point, ESPN will have several years worth of ESPN+ activity, operational RSNs, and the after effects of the SECN and ACCN being bundled together to add to their selling points. The B1G might come back without requiring favors. In a manner of speaking, I think ND in the ACC is actually a point of leverage for ESPN. ESPN has access to a lot of Midwestern markets without paying the full cost for the B1G. ESPN can say..."Delaney, we don't have to have your full slate to have your markets."
Then again, I'm not sure the B1G would really come back to ESPN in a more expanded role under any circumstances...not while Delaney is in charge anyway.
3. ND could probably make a good bit more money in the B1G, but I'm not sure it would be $200M over the course of a decade. If they go all in on the ACC then that ends up being a decent bump. The bundling of the ACCN and SECN will cause a bump as well. The gap will still be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it will quite be that much. I think the reasons that ND has always rebuffed the B1G are wide and varied so I think it will take more than a nice raise to get their attention.
4. The buyout would be significant even if all parties were interested in making it happen. If for no more reason than ND has to get out of that NBC deal...
I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.
Instead I think they would be making plays for the two Arizona schools, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A. and perhaps Utah and Colorado themselves. In which case Stanford, California, Oregon, Washington and perhaps of couple of the Big 12's targets would also be on the Big 10's short list.
So in other words if the PAC is being raided the Big 12 isn't going anywhere. But let's suppose for a minute that the PAC is raided. What do you suppose that Michigan, Michigan State, and Stanford in the same conference would do to Notre Dame's desire to remain in the ACC? And if the Big 12 grew back to 16 out of the PAC and the Big 10 went to 18 or 20 from them, what would that do to the SEC's desire to expand from the ACC?
So if ESPN, which will act in its own self interest, truly wants to hold onto the ACC and SEC then it is their best interests to make sure that the PAC doesn't fold. Because if it does they will never fully land Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas and the lure for N.D. to leave will be even stronger.
So getting back to the case at hand since the Big 10 won't take Oklahoma State, perhaps the only solution to eliminating the Big 12 is for the SEC to take the pair of Oklahoma schools and let Texas live in fear of heading North without any support for the fans back home with regard to their annual schedule.
But then that brings us back to what ESPN (allegedly) tried to accomplish in 2010. Remember when N.C. State and Virginia Tech were going to be the perfect additions for the SEC? The only reason they were discussed was because the hope of the Mouse in the pre GOR days was to raid the Big 12 taking Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all to the ACC. Remember this is pre Louisville and Maryland was still a member. So minus the two redundant state schools the remaining ACC has room for the addition of 4 major brands (which is what Deloss Dodds was shooting for). It would have given the SEC a presence in North Carolina and Virginia and with Texas A&M and Missouri on board it would have set up some major cross conference rivalries between Missouri / Kansas, A&M / Texas, and Oklahoma / Nebraska. It was a huge win all the way around for ESPN until rarified selfishness supposedly torpedoed the deal.
Now if ESPN truly wants Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the same deal would work today. Let Va Tech and N.C. State head to the SEC and those three can join with N.D. all in and then both conferences would be of relatively equal value and the Big 10 would have nothing on either of us.
Excluding the PAC that would bring equality to NCAA football.
But as long as the ACC old core remains resistant we will continue hearing trying propaganda from the baby blue mafia suggesting Missouri leave with Kansas to the Big 10 so that Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State can join the SEC. Never mind if that pisses off A&M. The original deal kept the Big 12 pals together grew the SEC in a reasonable way and would have made everyone happier who was not named UVa, UNC, Wake, or Duke.
What ESPN realizes now is that if Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC they will forever have Big 10 relationship issues. Never will have balance. And in the end will be forced to pump more money into the ACC just to keep it from remaining obviously vulnerable.
It also realizes that if Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the Big 10 they will lose the SEC's business down the road and then the SEC will raid the hell out of the ACC anyway.
ESPN does want it all, but that includes a nice chunk of the Big 10 to go along with their prizes of the SEC and ACC. Notre Dame has been their insurance of entry into Northern cities should the Big 10 indeed become fully hostile to them. What they never wanted was acrimony between the SEC and Big 10 over the properties they hoped to put in a place where they couldn't hurt either the SEC or Big 10, the ACC.
It's why now perhaps the only way for ESPN to hold firmly onto the SEC while holding what they want in the Big 10 is to squirrel those properties away to another conference that won't create anger between the SEC and Big 10 over their movement, the PAC. But first ESPN will have to buy something they probably don't want, the PACN.
For ESPN the placement of Texas and Oklahoma can't screw up their larger holdings. So ATU, the only way ESPN gets everything they want is if by getting it it doesn't cost them the SEC or part of the Big 10 or worse, both.
The ACC screwed the pooch for themselves and ESPN in 2010 and that's why ESPN drug its feet with the network that was planned to open 1 year after the SECN but with some lineup of headliners to sell their carriage. Florida State and Clemson are great. But add Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame to those two and you could sell the ACCN anywhere and what's more Maryland doesn't get pissed and leave over missing out on the promised bonanza.
So now the solutions are these:
1. Texas and Oklahoma are split between the SEC & Big 10 because if they are not ESPN will lose access to one of them altogether. Who the #2 is in either case is irrelevant.
But the consequence of this solution is that the SEC and Big 10 become uber conferences and the ACC and PAC will always trail them at a significant distance.
2. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State head to the PAC and neither the Big 10 nor SEC is offended.
But the consequence of this solution is that ESPN will have to buy into the PAC and then suffer not being able to monetize Texas and Oklahoma as fully there as they could have in the ACC in 2010, or severely in the SEC or Big 10.
3. Reprise the deal of 2010 and send Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma to the ACC. The SEC gets Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The deal stays in house so to speak and sharing the footprint and bundling the networks makes even more sense.
But the consequences will be a chilly relationship with the Big 10 which will likely lead to a PAC / Big 10 alliance of some sort, or at minimum simply alienates both conferences to ESPN. The Big 10 is in need of a tie to a recruiting hotbed somewhere in the Southwest or along the Mid Atlantic southward.
A compromise could be reached here if Virginia Tech headed to the Big 10 and N.C. State to the SEC. But whereas the SEC might be able to achieve one of its goals by taking T.C.U. or Oklahoma State, the Big 10 would have less palatable options for a #2 to accompany the Hokies.
4. ESPN encourages advances by the Big 12 and Big 10 on the PAC. ESPN and FOX share properties pretty close to 50/50 in the PAC (where rights are leased), and in the Big 10 and Big 12 (with the exception of T3 rights as represented individually by the schools of the Big 12 or as a unit with the BTN).
The consequences would be a totally alienated SEC that backed off of Oklahoma in 2010 and would have been screwed over by the foul ups of the network and the ACC who we would hold accountable. Remember if the SEC had not been led to believe that N.C.State and Virginia Tech would be available we might well have moved to 16 in 2010 with the deal Boren wanted back then, the pair of Oklahoma's. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Missouri would have been a stellar way for the SEC to get to 16 and it could easily have been pulled off.
So here we are. If FOX is bowing out of the collegiate sports broadcasting business then maybe ESPN's best move forward is to go hard after the Big 10 and try to hold onto it's key properties that way.
Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.